Nature 'With Editor': What the Handling-Editor Screen Means

Nature operates the full-time professional editor model, and the "With Editor" stage is where that model does its heaviest work. A Nature handling editor is not a working academic fitting journal work around a lab; the handling editor is a full-time professional who transitioned from research to editorial work. The handling editor reads the entire paper and evaluates broad-significance, scientific rigor, and Nature-family routing before deciding whether any referee is invited. A handling editor at Nature typically reviews 50 to 80 manuscripts per quarter and spends 30 to 90 minutes on the initial screening read. Nature's first stage is the handling editor deciding whether to send the manuscript for peer review; the editor may seek informal advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues before making that screen decision.

Nature editorial culture is decisive at the screen: roughly 90 to 95 percent of submissions are rejected here within 3 to 14 days, the highest desk-reject rate among general-science flagships. Papers that clear the handling editor have passed the steepest filter in life-science publishing, and the decision then shifts from "is this broad enough" to "is the science correct."

"With Editor" is the stage where the 90 to 95 percent desk-reject decision is made, before any referee is involved. The handling editor evaluates whether the broad-significance warrants one of Nature's selective editorial slots. A desk rejection at this screen most often means the editor concluded the work would fit better at a sister Nature Portfolio title (Nature Communications for broader scope, Nature Methods for methodology, Nature Medicine for clinical translation, Nature Genetics for genetics) or that the broad-significance bar is not met. None of this is a referee judgment; it is the editor reading the abstract, introduction, and first figure and asking what changed because of this work for an interdisciplinary readership.

Before the paper reaches the handling editor, the Nature editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, supplementary information separate, reporting checklists where applicable (ARRIVE for animal work, CONSORT for clinical trials, STROBE for observational studies), cover letter directed to the editor, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics documentation, IRB approvals, and a data-availability statement. Missing required items are the most common reason a submission never reaches "With Editor."

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates broad-significance, scientific rigor, and Nature-family routing. The editor may seek informal advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues before deciding. Clear cases resolve within the 3-to-14-day window: an obvious scope mismatch is returned quickly, and an obvious broad-significance paper moves to reviewer assignment. Complex cases, where the science is strong but the breadth is ambiguous, stretch the screen toward 2 to 6 weeks.

In parallel with the handling editor's screening read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Springer Nature editorial team, where peer handling editors at sister Nature Portfolio titles weigh whether the paper fits Nature, Nature Communications, or a specialty Nature title. This discussion runs alongside the screen and adds 3 to 5 days that are invisible in the portal. If your status sits at "With Editor" near the three-week mark, this internal discussion is the most likely reason, not neglect.

The "With Editor" stage ends the moment the handling editor either returns the paper (desk reject), recommends a Nature-family transfer, or moves it to reviewer assignment. The portal label changing from "With Editor" to a reviewer-assignment or "Under Review" state is the single clearest signal that your paper cleared the desk screen and the editorial-screening phase is complete.

• Return within 1 to 7 days: Administrative issue or immediate scope mismatch caught before full screening.
• Return within 7 to 21 days: Standard handling-editor desk rejection per the 90 to 95 percent figure. Most rejections happen here.
• Still With Editor at 3 to 4 weeks: Normal complex-case range; usually internal editor discussion about Nature-family fit. Not a reject signal.
• Still With Editor past 6 weeks: A polite inquiry via the Manuscript Tracking System is appropriate; the screen may have stalled in discussion.
• Status moves to Reviewers Assigned / Under Review: Screen passed. Your paper cleared the steepest filter in life-science publishing.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Nature authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no, 2 weeks puts you inside the normal desk-screen distribution, between the 3-to-14-day clear-case window and the 2-to-6-week complex-case range. The most likely explanation is that the handling editor sought informal advice from scientific advisors or triggered internal editor discussion about whether the broad-significance fits Nature or a sister Nature Portfolio title. That discussion is a sign the editor sees real significance worth routing carefully, not a sign of a pending desk reject. Most "With Editor" delays at Nature come from this breadth-and-routing question rather than from a slow editor, because the professional-editor model resolves the screen quickly once the breadth question is settled.

What you should NOT do during the first 6 weeks at "With Editor" is email the editorial office. Nature handling editors manage 50+ active papers; an inquiry mid-screen adds friction without accelerating the decision, and Springer Nature support explicitly asks authors to wait at least 6 weeks. If the status still reads "With Editor" past 6 weeks, a single polite one-line inquiry referencing the manuscript ID is reasonable.

If your Nature paper is returned at the "With Editor" screen rather than sent to referees, the cascade depends on what the handling editor cited:

Nature Communications is the most natural Springer Nature cascade because Nature Portfolio supports manuscript transfer with any reviewer reports preserved; at the screen stage, transfer happens before reports exist, but the editorial assessment travels. Nature Communications has a broader scope than Nature.

Specialty Nature titles (Nature Methods, Nature Medicine, Nature Genetics, Nature Neuroscience) are natural cascades where the work fits a specialty editorial scope.

Communications journals (Communications Biology, Communications Medicine) are the Nature Portfolio open-access cascade for broad-significance work where the open-access model fits.

Science / Cell are external cascades for top-tier general-science work. These journals operate independently from Springer Nature; assessments do not transfer.

The "With Editor" decision is not a referee evaluation; it is a desk screen against four criteria. The table maps each to what you can confirm while you wait.

In our pre-submission review work with Nature manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent editorial-screen concerns and the most common reasons a paper is returned at the "With Editor" stage before any referee is invited. The practical question during the screen is whether the abstract, introduction, main figures, Methods, Reporting Summary, Data Availability Statement, Supplementary Information, and cover letter already make the broad-significance claim auditable. Nature's public guidance explains the process; the Manusights layer is the manuscript-level pattern, what a waiting author can strengthen before the handling editor decides.

Nature narrow-significance framing in the abstract and introduction. In Nature manuscripts, the abstract and first two introduction paragraphs sometimes prove importance to a subfield but not to an interdisciplinary readership. The Methods and figures may be strong, yet the manuscript still reads like a specialty Nature title because the screen does not see the broader principle, mechanism, or dataset consequence. During the "With Editor" wait, check whether the title, abstract, first figure, and final introduction paragraph all point to the same Nature-level claim. If only the cover letter makes the broad-significance argument, the screen package is fragile because the cover letter is not what the handling editor weighs most heavily.

Check whether your Nature abstract clears the screen→

Nature reporting-summary and methods gaps that surface the moment referees are assigned. In Nature manuscripts, ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, data-availability, code-availability, image-integrity, and statistical-reporting details often become referee requests even when the editor likes the question at the screen. The weak point is rarely an ignored checklist name. It is that the Methods, Reporting Summary, figure legends, source data, statistical analysis, sample-size rationale, and randomization or blinding statement do not let a technical referee verify the claim quickly. If the manuscript is With Editor, use the wait to prepare exact manuscript-location answers for these components so the paper is ready the moment the screen passes.

Check whether your Nature methods package is review-ready→

Nature-family transfer logic that ends the screen in a redirect. In Nature manuscripts, a rigorous paper may receive a transfer recommendation to Nature Communications, Nature Medicine, Nature Methods, Nature Genetics, or another specialty title if the handling editor concludes at the screen that the result is strong but not broad enough for Nature. Authors lose time when they treat that as failure instead of mapping the likely route. Before the screen ends, identify which figure, method, dataset, clinical claim, mechanism, or model-system constraint would make a specialty Nature title cleaner. That map helps if the screen ends in reject-with-transfer rather than referee assignment.

Check whether your Nature transfer plan is screen-ready→

This guide tells you what Nature editors look for while the manuscript is being screened. The review tells you whether YOUR paper passes that screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting Nature and peer Nature Portfolio venues; the named patterns above are the same ones handling editors flag during the desk screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. We do not train AI on your manuscript and delete it within 24 hours.

This page helps Nature authors turn a static With Editor label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the broad-significance claim, Reporting Summary, source data, Methods, figure logic, Supplementary Information, and likely Nature-family fallback before the handling editor finishes the screen.

Of the 146 manuscripts our team reviewed for this Nature status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract, first figure, and Reporting Summary made broad significance and technical reproducibility visible before the handling editor had to reconstruct the claim from the supplementary files.

This page was created from Nature's public editorial criteria and processes at nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes, Springer Nature author support documentation (90 to 95 percent desk rejection at the handling-editor screen, 3 to 14 day clear-case window, 2 to 6 week complex-case window, editor-sought advice from scientific advisors), SciRev community-reported transit data on Nature, a live review of public search results for "nature with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal explainers from author-services sites rather than Nature-specific desk-screen timing), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Nature-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitations: public Nature guidance can confirm the Manuscript Tracking System route, the editor-led triage, the desk-screen criteria, and broad timing expectations, but it cannot reveal the private screening state inside a specific manuscript record. In practical author terms, the useful task during the "With Editor" wait is to connect the screen to broad-significance framing, Reporting Summary completeness, source data, Methods, and Nature-family transfer planning.

For the Springer Nature broad-significance landscape beyond Nature, see Nature Communications (broader scope, Nature Portfolio transfer-friendly), specialty Nature titles (Nature Methods, Nature Medicine, Nature Genetics), Communications journals (open-access alternative), and external general-science alternatives (Science, Cell, PNAS). Once your paper clears the "With Editor" screen, the next status is reviewer assignment; the Nature Under Review guide covers what happens once 2 to 3 reviewers are invited.

Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and the "With Editor" stage is where that triage happens. Preparing a response template that addresses both broad-significance and technical-rigor perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially once the screen passes, given the 3 to 6 month first-decision distribution that follows.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Nature broad-significance bar before the editorial screen, our Nature pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and reporting-checklist weaknesses most likely to stall a paper at "With Editor."